Talk:NewsGuard

Publish News Sources as List; Include "Reliable" News Sources

I think a detailed, standalone list of "Reliable" and "Unreliable" new sources should be given, vs the linear, "in sentence" format being used now. At this time the Article does not include any "reliable" news sources. Also great attention to should be given to exactly how this determination is made, particularly since there is a "license" component, which to me implies that a news source can purchase their "reliability" at the time they pay for their "license". Also, given the recent maneuvers by the SPLC and ADL, I would not be surprised that a News Source's "reliability" would also be determined by their political orientation, and this new quality called "hate".Tym Whittier (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinion is not wanted. You start "I think". I don't "think" you understand. I left you a note on your talk page. Eschoryii (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard for reliable source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#News_Guard_%2B_Media_Bias_Fact_Check_Redux FrederickZoltair (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms?

This desperately needs a criticisms section.

1. The tool is heavily criticized on the right/middle for favoring left-wing outlets. Whether you agree with the criticisms or not, that seems relevant.
2. The design flaw is assuming sites and not articles are the correct fidelity on what to trust.

E.g. a bad/erroneous article at CNN will get a better rating than a good/accurate article on Breitbart. The same article will get different ratings depending on who the aggregator is. That might be inferred to the technical folks by saying "site rating", but the average users/readers should probably have that flaw called out by someone that's better at writing in the correct tone. David Every (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Criticism needs to be cited to a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

My neutral statement would be something like,

"Newsguard uses a site based scoring system, instead of article or content based. This means erroneous articles from approved sources are flagged as trustworthy, while a completely accurate articles from unapproved sources will be flagged as untrustworthy -- based on the cites, and not the content. Aggregated articles can be flagged as both depending on whether they were found on an approved or unapproved source."

That seems important tidbit for a layperson to understand. But I'm not sure how to prove it. It is an obvious design/logic flaw to assume everything by a credible source is good, or a non-credible source is bad. We know that's a logical fallacy. But how do I find an approved source that will admit it? (In a citation that's relevant enough to allow an addition?).

I was hoping someone could put in a better worded (approved edit) that got the message across, so I could learn from it.

As for the perceived bias point, ("some believe that Newsguard favors left leaning and mainstream sources in the U.S."), I assume a citation like this: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/joseph-vazquez/2021/12/13/study-newsguard-ratings-system-heavily-skews-favor-left won't meet with approval, even though they are using a simple scoring of Allsides?

Why I don't contribute is that I had watched a lot of discussions on talk. Wikipedia seems to use the same whitelist/blacklist as Newguard: based on sites instead of contents/merits of the article/points, so there's "appeal to authority/pedigree" bias, that turns some areas into echo-chambers.

Of course, I'm not going to try to fight/change the standards. Wikipedia gets to set the rules for their site, so you're fine by explaining/moderating them. e.g. I'm not arguing with you. But I don't know how to lay out a neutral argument that a source is perceived by many as biased -- even though I know that it is. But all the sources that say as much, won't get "approved" as reliable.

NOTE: This is a problem with many textbooks/etc, or anything that tries to offer certainty of consensus/authority instead of the reality of conflicting interpretations of the same data. David Every (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, you're going to run into trouble here because a) Wikipedia doesn't allow its contributors to post their own opinions in articles, and that looks like it's pretty much all your opinions; b) if you start with your conclusion already reached before you begin your research, you're going to be subject to confirmation bias; and c) Wikipedia does indeed have high standards for sources. It's kind of our thing, sort of like how The New Yorker has those little cartoon doodles in the middle of their articles that are never funny enough to make you laugh. I don't know that there's really a trick to finding sources acceptable to Wikipedia, but you could check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a quick reference. For example, the citation that you included is to the Media Research Center, which, according to Wikipedia consensus is "at a minimum, generally unreliable for factual reporting". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a criticism section -- as any corporation that claims to be an arbiter of truth does -- and will try to find a proper academic source for it in the next days. I am fluent in German and French so perhaps the academia there has taken a look at it already. Though from what I've seen so far, the criticism doesn't just stem from the right/centre; I've spent the past ~2 hours trying to read up on it and have seen plenty of criticism from the left as well, as Newsguard tends to label communist/socialist news websites as unreliable. My impression so far is that rather than favouring any political spectrum, it tends to favour corporate media and dismiss smaller media outlets, whether they be right or left wing or anything in between. Again, just my first impression, I'll see what academic sources say. If anyone is fluent in a language besides German/French/English, I would encourage them to look in other languages as well, as there have been several cases in the past where I have found trustworthy literature in other languages to be more abundant than in English. Sarrotrkux (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. But this hits another kind of confirmation bias. What incentive is there for left wing universities or approved leftist sources to question themselves? You showed that maybe if it wasn't left enough one of the approved leftist sources might have questioned it, and since those sources would be approved, maybe I could back into making a point. And that was good hope. But I feel like I'm still at a point where something is obvious: "site based scoring is too granular and will misflag many (false positive/negative) articles based on that lack of fidelity". Just because I can't find a source study, that studies that phenom in NewsGuard in particular, doesn't change the reality that assumptions about every member of a group (based on their membership) has more potential for bias/bigotry than actually looking at the members and specifics. Whether that is racist/cultural bigotry, or article/site bigotry, it's still the same phenom. But to me, this is another example where instead of finding a solution, someone has a good excuses to keep an article more biased and offer less truth, and thus offer a lower quality service/product to their customers. (Not you, just those that want to find excuses for how not to add anything that questions an obviously stupid scoring system, to anyone that's done any sort of data analysis). David Every (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Also NewsGuard gives a 100 percent credibility rating to Fake News, such as with USA Today recently. --Con^spiration 21:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism from the left

Here's a response from Joe Lauria, editor of Consortium News, one of the publications Newsguard gave a red label to and accused of publishing false content This includes Lauria's own critique of Newsguard. One of the significant criticisms is that the board of directors includes former officials from the CIA, NATO, and Homeland Security, and that they have partnerships with the Pentagon and State Department. Lauria says that Newsguard's evaluations are biased in favor of those organizations and their policies. This is a WP:RS, if for no other reason than it reflects the opinion of an editor whose publication has been red-labeled, in defending himself, under WP:RSEDITORIAL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyznp8qUEkg

As U.S. Funnels Money to Ukraine, Independent Media Faces Pressure to Parrot Official Narrative

Democracy Now

July 12, 2022

Joe Lauria, editor-in-chief of Consortium News

Lauria: Newsguard started in two or three years ago. It's a private company based in New York. On its board is Michael Hayden who was a former CIA NSA director, our former NATO secretary general rasmussen, Tom Ridge, the first Homeland Security director. They have partnerships with the Pentagon and with the State Department. Stephen Brill was one of the founders of it, who back in the 90s had the magazine Brill's Content. They take it upon themselves to review news organizations large and small, from the New York Times to Consortium News and they wrote to us that they were reviewing us, but in the very first email we were accused of publishing false content on Ukraine. Well we turned the tables on them. I wrote a 9,000 word article responding to their charges against us in which I show that in fact News Guard's reporting on Ukraine is false and they need to make the corrections that they're demanding of us. It's chilling because they will give a red label to websites that they consider to be untrustworthy. This pops up on libraries across Europe and the United States, and every person who buys a Microsoft computer or Microsoft software has this extension built in that they can turn on, and then whenever our website shows up on social media, whether it's Twitter or Google, there'll be this red mark against us and and there's a warning to proceed with caution. This is outrageous obviously. We have a right even to be wrong. We have a right to say what we want to. This is supposed to be the freedom of press that the U.S and European governments protest that they support, and in fact they're trying to protect their own interests and to cover up any criticism, legitimate criticism, of the failures of their policies. And this is no different than any kind of totalitarian system. I'm sorry because they want a total control and, the word 'totals' in 'totalitarian.'

--Nbauman (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources don't suddenly become reliable because they've been criticized. It seems a bit unlikely that Consortium News would pass muster when The Washington Post (link) and Slate.com (link) have accused it of publishing Russian disinformation from RT. You could try WP:RSN, but that forum now tends to be stricter than me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

(1) DemocracyNow meets all the requirements of WP:RS.

(2) According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

This is an opinion representing the views of Joe Lauria, editor-in-chief of Consortium News. Therefore, it is acceptable as such under WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You mean Democracy Now!? That looks potentially more reliable, but instead of posting your arguments here, why not try WP:RSN? They love to debate this kind of stuff over there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to debate "this kind of stuff." I am quoting the Wikipedia guideline WP:RS, which allows editorial opinion like this in Wikipedia entries. --Nbauman (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSNP says "There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by Robert Parry) may be considered self-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories." Doug Weller talk 10:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What I know Consortium News for is this story: https://consortiumnews.com/2020/12/19/russia-hack-story-another-media-failure/ (and several articles on it) which proves itself to be solid reporting. So the quotation above is demonstrably itself disinformation. DrSFCA (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Cover-up of US Gov't funding of Newsguard!?

NewsGuard receives government funding, according to journalist Michael Shellenberger (youtube video 22YOaYeI6lA, at t=550), but NewsGuard denied it was 'government-funded' after being called out as part of the vast Censorship Complex, per https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/13/is-newsguard-government-funded-you-decide/. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_FA864921P1569_9700_-NONE-_-NONE- shows NEWSGUARD (TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 25 W 52ND ST FL 15, NEW YORK, NY 10019-6104) received DoD funding of $749,387 in 2021. The details of the contract should be available in a couple weeks at https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/newsguard-technologies-contracts-dod-129862/, to show what was funded. However, from reading the Federalist article and its sources, it already seems to be beyond serious dispute that NewsGuard received significant government funding for its work - the core claims therein of Crovitz and Brill don't seem credible. So what does it mean to report this in a balanced way? Why are blacklisted links blocked from discusion pages? DrSFCA (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't label it as 'government-funded' yet but it does appear to contract with the US DoD and Air Force for funding. CurryCity (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Journalist background

I restored some background information with this edit after being accused of SOAP. Some folks have strong feelings about certain outlets, which I understand, but the basic information itself doesn't carry an opinion. CurryCity (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "Its current team include journalists such as the former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, the founder of The American Lawyer and CourtTV, as well as former editors at Reuters, the Associated Press, and the Chicago Tribune."

Hipal, I read SOAP and PROMO, which appear to link to the same information. I don't think what you removed above has anything to do with those policies. It is not promotion, only basic facts. CurryCity (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The single reference is self-published about themselves. As I indicated in my edit summary, to avoid NOT and POV problems, and independent reference is required. --Hipal (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Self-publishing and POV issues can be solved by attributing the information to the website itself. Most organisations have an "About Us" page or similar information which is regularly cited by Wikipedia. CurryCity (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Such references are inherently biased, and do not demonstrate any encyclopedic value or due weight. --Hipal (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The background information in this case is so basic it shouldn't be affected by issues such as SOAP, PROMO, POV, self-published, biased, DUE. I'd like to get a third-opinion on this. CurryCity (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Or it could be just be targeted name-dropping from their public relations people. --Hipal (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: If no other source but the organization's own "About Us" page saw fit to comment on any of this as significant, I think we'd be giving it undue weight by including it in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If the objection is about the source only, I can find other ones. These sources [1] [2] [3] mention the background for Brill (American Lawyer, Court TV) and Crovitz (WSJ). CurryCity (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, would the sources above work? CurryCity (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's just still very brief mentions of that stuff, and none treats it as very significant. That's still puffery and undue weight; we don't need a "mini-CV" every time we mention an individual. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

References